[lurkingforacure]

I had never heard of this term, and no wonder it is kept under wraps. "Your Medical Mind" by Dr. Groopman and wife, Dr. Hartzbrand (Dr. Goopman previously wrote "How Doctors Think", an insight into how doctors are trained and "led" into the pharma methodology of medicine, that is, a pill for every ill) is a very interested book about how people make medical decisions, what factors they consider and how their background comes into play).

I learned there is a number, called the "number needed to treat". Take the "risk for heart attack decreased by 30% with use of statin" we so often see, by way of example. What this number really means, the authors explain, is this (and boy, when put in this perspective, who would ever take some of these drugs?):

Say that without treatment, a particular Patient's risk for heart attack is 1 out of 100. If 1 of 100 women like Patient has a heart attack, that means 2 out of 200, 3 out of 300. The statin treatment claims to reduce risk by 30%, or about 1/3. Apply that to 300 women like Patient, where 3 would have a heart attack without statins. If ALL were treated, one heart attack would be prevented, because 1/3 of 3 is 1.

What really got me was when the book said: "The remaining 297 women would not have had a heart attack even without the medications, so they wouldn't benefit from taking it."

What? The authors continue:

"This statistic comes as a surprise to many people. When you hear that a statin lowers Susan's risk by 30 percent, it osounds as if she is at 100 percent of suffering a heart attack if she doesnt' take the medications. The calculation above yielded what is called the "number needed to treat", how many people must be treated to benefit one person in the group...By calculating the "number needed to treat", you can clearly grasp the impact of the drug for an individual."

I know this information is not particularly helpful when you HAVE to take a drug to function, such as sinemet and some others....but when you consider how many drugs are pushed at us, if people really knew just how effective or, rather, ineffective some of them are, a lot of misery from side effects may be prevented.

Has anyone's neuro ever shared with them the "number needed to treat" for a drug they recommend? And if so, what was it?

[paula_w]

Originally Posted by lurkingforacure

I had never heard of this term, and no wonder it is kept under wraps. "Your Medical Mind" by Dr. Groopman and wife, Dr. Hartzbrand (Dr. Goopman previously wrote "How Doctors Think", an insight into how doctors are trained and "led" into the pharma methodology of medicine, that is, a pill for every ill) is a very interested book about how people make medical decisions, what factors they consider and how their background comes into play).

I learned there is a number, called the "number needed to treat". Take the "risk for heart attack decreased by 30% with use of statin" we so often see, by way of example. What this number really means, the authors explain, is this (and boy, when put in this perspective, who would ever take some of these drugs?):

Say that without treatment, a particular Patient's risk for heart attack is 1 out of 100. If 1 of 100 women like Patient has a heart attack, that means 2 out of 200, 3 out of 300. The statin treatment claims to reduce risk by 30%, or about 1/3. Apply that to 300 women like Patient, where 3 would have a heart attack without statins. If ALL were treated, one heart attack would be prevented, because 1/3 of 3 is 1.

What really got me was when the book said: "The remaining 297 women would not have had a heart attack even without the medications, so they wouldn't benefit from taking it."

What? The authors continue:

"This statistic comes as a surprise to many people. When you hear that a statin lowers Susan's risk by 30 percent, it osounds as if she is at 100 percent of suffering a heart attack if she doesnt' take the medications. The calculation above yielded what is called the "number needed to treat", how many people must be treated to benefit one person in the group...By calculating the "number needed to treat", you can clearly grasp the impact of the drug for an individual."

I know this information is not particularly helpful when you HAVE to take a drug to function, such as sinemet and some others....but when you consider how many drugs are pushed at us, if people really knew just how effective or, rather, ineffective some of them are, a lot of misery from side effects may be prevented.

Has anyone's neuro ever shared with them the "number needed to treat" for a drug they recommend? And if so, what was it?

Doctors themselves do not take as many treatments. they take fewer because they know that quality of life would be too poor. i saw it on a tv show in a segment called 'doctors die differently"

[lurkingforacure]

Originally Posted by paula_w

Doctors themselves do not take as many treatments. they take fewer because they know that quality of life would be too poor. i saw it on a tv show in a segment called 'doctors die differently"

Yes, Paula, this particular doctor who wrote the book mentioned that he had back pain and had surgery for it, horrible mistake, regrets it every day and wonders why he decided to have back surgery in the first place (probably why he wrote this book!).

It is interesting, though, don't you think, that many doctors push treatments at their patients that they would never consider for themselves! And worse, pressure or threaten to drop patients if they don't comply with what they prescribe! There are lots of stories out there of this, one of them is chronicled in this book. I was very glad to read of another person feeling pressured by her doctor, since I have felt that way myself sometimes. I have actually had a doctor's office hound me by phone over not filling a prescription for an anti-anxiety drug I told her to her face during our visit that I did not want and would not take!! How sad, and contrary to what the doctor/patient relationship is supposed to be.

But all good to know, so that we can best represent what we believe to be in our individual best interests.